Richards v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Richards v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

812 F.2d 211

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1797

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 812 F.2d 211 (Richards v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richards v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 812 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal seeks review by us of an order of the trial court remanding this case to state court on the ground that it was removed “improvidently and without jurisdiction,” essentially on the ground that appellant did not receive notice of the motion to remand and had no opportunity to oppose it. Assuming that this is true (as it appears to be), it remains that such orders as that of the trial court — orders which recite the magic words that we quote above — are “not subject to challenge in the court of appeals by appeal, by mandamus, or otherwise.” Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 343, 96 S.Ct. 584, 589, 46 L.Ed.2d (1976).¹

The Thermtron court does not say that we cannot review orders purporting to remand on this basis on certain grounds, or for certain faults; for constitutional infirmities, but not for statutory ones: it says that we cannot review them at all. There it ends.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This appeal seeks review by us of an order of the trial court remanding this case to state court on the ground that it was removed “improvidently and without jurisdiction,” essentially on the ground that appellant did not receive notice of the motion to remand and had no opportunity to oppose it. Assuming that this is true (as it appears to be), it remains that such orders as that of the trial court — orders which recite the magic words that we quote above — are “not subject to challenge in the court of appeals by appeal, by mandamus, or otherwise.” Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 343, 96 S.Ct. 584, 589, 46 L.Ed.2d (1976).¹

The Thermtron court does not say that we cannot review orders purporting to remand on this basis on certain grounds, or for certain faults; for constitutional infirmities, but not for statutory ones: it says that we cannot review them at all. There it ends.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 F.2d 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-federated-department-stores-inc-ca5-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack